The article has emphasized on the problem that music is widely used today for the well being of mankind, but there are strong differences in individual inclinations, music emerges to put forth direct physiologic impacts through the autonomic nervous system.
I do not think that the researcher is clear about what she is trying to study, or she is not fully able to express what she wants to do, because the problem stated in a vague manner. I think that the problem is identifiable but is not so clear. The problem is researchable, and based upon the patients and their treatment through the music and the relative outcome of the music therapy (Kemper et al, 2005).
The problem studied in this research can be a vital contribution to the nursing practices because music therapy is getting explicit acknowledgment in the healthcare setting, and it could lead to a discovery of cost-effective therapy for patient treatment. This research can lead to development of vital theory for the medical field. The definitions in this research are clear and detailed, but the conciseness is not observed in these definitions. For instance, the definition of “epidemiology” could be given in more concise way, but the researcher has defined it in very precise manner.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of the study contains music, kinds of music, music therapy, and benefits of music therapy, music and mood in medical and surgical patients. The researcher has tried her best to convert them into research terms, and it is quite acceptable. Yes, the assumptions are clearly stated in the start of the study and justifiable. For instance, “Music may enhance care-giving behavior.” The researcher has included some supporting theories to support the assumptions included in the study. No, there is no hypothesis in the study. ...